Nikon will not go to full frame...

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by John A. Stovall, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. I think lens technology is quite mature. For dynamic range, who knows.
    The same applies to quantum efficiency.

    The main thing is that Canon can start today. 30 Mpixels at fullframe 35mm
    corresponds to 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop. My guess is that Canon will have the
    technology for 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop already for a future 30D.

    But 30 Mpixels at DX does rely on improvements in dynamic range and
    noise reduction otherwise it is pointless.
     
    Philip Homburg, Feb 3, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    Yes, I should have been more specific as to which sort of pros actually
    care about the benefits of larger sensors. It isn't so much full-frame,
    as being able to offer low-noise at higher ISOs, and being able to come
    out with professional lenses for the smaller sensors.

    Even though larger pixels will always be lower noise, if all else is
    equal, at some point it may be academic if the noise levels are low
    enough. Nikon (or more accurately, Sony) isn't there yet.

    It'll be interesting to see how the Cypress sensor in the Olympus E-330
    fares. The early sensors from Fill-Factory (which Cypress took over)
    were pretty bad.

    Nikon has already lost all the early adopters that absolutely needed
    low-noise and a full line of professional lenses. These are the most
    profitable customers. If they come out with these products now, they'll
    be selling to a much smaller TAM. So maybe it's better to just forget
    it. Not every company can sell into all market segments. Still, it'd be
    good for consumers if Canon had some competition at the high end.
     
    SMS, Feb 3, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    Tell that to Aston-Martin. They have never, ever, sold their cars at a
    profit, and are now into their eighty-ninth consecutive year of selling
    them at a loss.

    You can't but admire such a company.

    Jan Böhme

    The trick, there, is to sell the company at a profit, rather than the
    cars... ;-)
     
    Skip M, Feb 3, 2006
    #83
  4. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    Depends on the job. Shooting weddings indoors with flash restrictions call
    for wide, fast lenses. None are availble for EF mount cameras with a 1.6x
    crop.
    BTW, I drive a Dodge Durango. Not because it makes me feel safe, but
    because it was the smallest vehicle I could buy that would carry the gear we
    sometimes do, go off road in a reasonable fashion and cost under $40,000.
    It does the job we need it to, rather like the 5D. In fact the handling of
    the vehicle makes me feel less safe. I've always been an advocate of
    avoiding an accident, rather than plowing ahead and hoping for the best...
    At the moment, there are no alternatives to Canon mount fast wide angles
    that compensate for the crop factor of the APS-C cameras. The 10-22 is as
    wide on a 20D as a 16-35 is on a 5D, but it isn't as fast. And FF will
    always have an advantage in signal/noise over APS-C sized sensors. Whether
    that advantage remains important to photographers is arguable.
    That certainly stands to reason, there are a lot more people willing to put
    up with shortcomings of a $1000 camera rather than plunk down $3000 or
    $7000.
    Well, in light of the number of DX lenses built that would be less than
    optimal for a 35mm sized sensor, there probably are a lot of Nikon users who
    think like you. OTOH, with a decent inventory of 35mm oriented lenses on
    hand, and only one EF-S lens, and a cheap one at that, buying a 5D made
    sense to us.
     
    Skip M, Feb 3, 2006
    #84
  5. John A. Stovall

    Matt Clara Guest

    I understand, you have to cut your losses at some point, but if Canon had
    "just forgot it" 25 years ago, they wouldn't be market leader today.
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 3, 2006
    #85
  6. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    I read a case study of Canon in Harvard Business Review once, on how
    they decided to leverage and expand their core competencies of optics,
    micro-mechanics, and electronics, to become the leader in cameras,
    photocopiers, and printers.

    The investment in sensor technology would probably never have been made,
    had they looked strictly at return on investment--they could have done
    as most other companies did and rely on sensors from a supplier.

    Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
    35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.
     
    SMS, Feb 3, 2006
    #86
  7. Indeed; that is truly an accomplishment to admire.
    How many times over the 87 years, do you happen to know?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 3, 2006
    #87
  8. I find the slow wideangles not too much of a problem. They already
    had so much DOF that selective focus doesn't seem to be an issue, and
    I can support fairly slow shutter speeds at the WA end of course.

    But that's "not too much", which is different from "none", and that's
    relative to what *I* shoot. It's the clear drawback of small-sensor
    DSLRs still.

    However, it shouldn't be particularly hard to make some decent 8mm and
    12mm decently fast DX lenses, if they decide it's worth it.

    What *I'm* waiting for is the 16-70mm f2 DX zoom. (Meanwhile, the
    18-55 f2.8 is on my wishlist.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 3, 2006
    #88
  9. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    You'll probably see a VR version of their 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 before that.

    It's cheaper to add the VR than to make a faster lens, and many users
    will be willing to deal with the slower lens if they have VR. For the
    consumer side of the business, where the big volumes are, Nikon needs
    something to compete against the Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS.

    IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems for Nikon is that they've been slow
    in coming out with higher-end lenses for the 1.5 crop factor. It's one
    thing to tell everyone that they don't need full-frame, but another
    thing to not at least offer lenses that are as good as what are
    available for their film bodies. Canon has the same issue of not having
    come out with higher-end lenses for the 1.6x crop factor, but at least
    they have a story to tell, "you want a full range of pro lenses, buy a
    5D, or one of the Mark II models."
     
    SMS, Feb 3, 2006
    #89
  10. I'd like to see it too, but would rather have it in a full frame version.
    Nikon dropped the ball with the 18-55mm f/2.8 by not taking it up to 70mm.
    This is why I opted to buy the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses
    instead of the 18-55. Skip the 18-55mm; I'm glad I did!







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 3, 2006
    #90
  11. How beneficial would VR be on WA lenses? I'm guessing it would not be that
    great a deal like it is on long lenses.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 3, 2006
    #91
  12. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It seems to me that they dropped the ball by, well, not making it at all.
    Seriously, what is this "18-55mm f/2.8" of which you speak? Nikon makes
    no such thing. They make a slower one that is apparently not very good.

    If they did, is the 55-70mm range really that significant? I have no zoom
    that covers it (since selling the 18-70 along with my D70), and I don't feel
    like I'm missing anything.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 3, 2006
    #92
  13. John A. Stovall

    Jun Liu Guest

    Perhaps 17-55mm f/2.8?
    Personally I would buy Nikon prime lenses to cover the whole range, if
    money's not a problem. For digital I think 14mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.4, 50mm
    f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 180mm f/2.8 are pretty much all I need for superb image
    quality. Zoom lenses are a compromise in every sense.


    Jun
     
    Jun Liu, Feb 3, 2006
    #93
  14. So you are saying that chosing Canon equipment for such a job
    is clearly a poor choice.

    ....
    And repeating that statement, with details, here...

    ....
    Odd logic. You've clearly chosen the wrong tool for the job.

    If you were shooting birds with a big white lense, you'd have a
    good argument about owning a lense, perhaps. It would be six of
    one and half a dozen of the other. Instead you are saying you've
    got none of one and little of the other...
     
    Floyd Davidson, Feb 3, 2006
    #94
  15. Oops! Sorry, I meant the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor.

    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2147
    To some people, yes it is very significant, namely me. I felt the same way
    about the 17-35mm range as well being of less importance to me till I found
    my self in situations, though limited, were I needed it. I bought the 28-70
    first and after several weeks decided that the 17-35 would still be worth
    having. Then again, I can agree with you that if you don't have that range
    you get used to not using it and learn to improvise. It still would be nice
    to have no gaps between 55-70mm since it would compliment the 70-200mm VR I
    do enjoy using so much.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 3, 2006
    #95
  16. John A. Stovall

    Tony Polson Guest


    Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by.

    For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete
    joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because
    it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted
    their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre
    consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses.

    That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera
    that could be taken seriously for pro use. The EOS-1n began to earn
    Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the
    outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped.

    That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the
    1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in
    1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete
    on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100.

    But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a
    real competitor, let alone to be "stunned".
     
    Tony Polson, Feb 3, 2006
    #96
  17. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    "Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro of
    the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.) The 1n was introduced in Nov.
    1994, the 1v in March, 2000. Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.)
     
    Skip M, Feb 3, 2006
    #97
  18. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest


    Twice before WWII, then to David Brown in '49 (DB2, DB3, DBR1, DB5, DB V8,
    et al), IIRC, then to some investors in the late '60s (V8, Lagonda), then
    Ford. There may have been someone between the people who purchased the
    company from David Brown and Ford, but I'm not sure.
     
    Skip M, Feb 3, 2006
    #98
  19. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    Yeah, sure, that's what I'm saying. Cripes, quit trying to justify Nikon's
    DX. They don't make a WA zoom at f2.8, either. So, Nikon shooters do
    without, or use the 10.5mm f2.8 and de-fish in Pshop. Shooting with a Canon
    20D, you don't have that choice. But with the 5D or 1Ds mkII, you have a
    plethora of wide angles and WA zooms from which to choose.
    Why, sir, is that the wrong tool for the job? Because it is the only camera
    on the market that gives 12mp, and lets me use a 16-35 f2.8 as it was meant
    to be used, as a superwide, rather than as a medium wide, which is what the
    17-35 Nikkor translates to on a D2x?
    That is exactly what I am NOT saying. If I were shooting birds with a big
    white lens, then an APS-C sensored body makes more sense than shooting
    landscapes with a WA on it...
     
    Skip M, Feb 3, 2006
    #99
  20. John A. Stovall

    Tony Polson Guest

    Pros didn't buy the EOS-1. It was regarded as a good first attempt,
    but not anywhere near enough to tempt pros away from Nikon. The
    EOS-1n was better, but the EOS-1V was the first EOS body that pros
    took seriously, and that came in 2000.

    I rest my case. Canon enthusiasts may with to spin it another way,
    but that is how it really was.
    I already stated that, Skip.
     
    Tony Polson, Feb 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.